Democratic design for the long-term

What might a revitalised democracy for the sake of future generations look like?

From pensions, health and social care, and infrastructure, to climate change, biodiversity, pandemics, and emerging technologies, democracies have a patchy record in considering the long term. Can we better design our democratic institutions to give due weight to the interests of future generations? This question motivates my new book, Can Democracy Safeguard the Future? (Polity, 2021).

Our first stop is the drivers of “democratic myopia”. Why do democratic systems tend to be shortsighted? I distinguish between four drivers:

1. Non-presence of future generations. As feminists have long pointed out, lack of political presence in decision making means interests are overlooked.
2. Electoral cycles. 4–5 year terms generate short-term electoral-party motivations and lack of confidence amongst the electorate that long-term promises will be sustained.
3. Resistance from incumbent interests. Those organised interests that do well out of the current system resist change.
4. Dynamics of the capitalist system. These include short-term investment strategies, the speed of the news cycle and pressures to consume.

One reaction to democratic myopia has been to give up on democracy and to argue for an authoritarian solution — or at the very least governance by experts. This is a mistaken move for so many reasons — not least the performance of autocracies compared to democracies. The belief that an enlightened autocrat will protect the interests of future generations and will not descend into corruption and clientelism is naïve at best.

Instead, we need to think about how we can revitalise democracy for the sake of future generations. What might this look like in terms of institutional design?

Legislatures

Given their prominent place in legitimising democratic systems, much of the focus has been on legislatures. We have seen the emergence of parliamentary committees for the future in Finland and Germany, but these have had little impact beyond raising the consciousness of a few politicians. They have not been afforded significant political power, for example, to scrutinise proposed legislation.

Other proposals for parliamentary reform include specific representatives of future generations. Challenges exist as to how to ensure that existing political parties do not game the system and increase their own representation through these new openings. Where proposals suggest certain classes of people should have more than one vote because of their long-term sensibilities, we are undermining cherished principles of political equality. Longer terms for political representatives to protect them from electoral cycles are unlikely to be acceptable to the public, who are already concerned about their capacity to discipline political elites. Other interesting proposals for parliamentary reform that deserve further consideration include sub-majority rules where minorities of representatives are able to block, veto or send to a referendum those legislative proposals that have detrimental impact on future generations.

Independent offices for future generations

A second set of reform proposals focus on independent offices for future generations. Commissioners in Israel and Hungary were created with powers to delay or veto action by parliament that they deemed lacked attention to future generations. The Israeli Commissioner was swiftly abolished and its Hungarian counterpart had its powers curtailed. The irony is that these bodies were created by politicians in recognition of their own short-term tendencies and then abolished when they stopped the self-same politicians acting in the short-term!

We still have an example of a Future Generations Commissione created more recently in Wales, although she has more limited powers compared to the earlier cases. One obvious challenge for their sustainability is that these independent offices lack a substantial constituency to defend their interests.

My own take on most of these reforms and proposals is that while they may be worthy of support, they lack a democratic spirit. They are elite institutions — new types of political representatives, commissioners or judges — that are given the role of safeguarding the future. As elite responses to a democratic problem, they are not sufficient.

Enhanced public participation and deliberation

Safeguarding future generations requires us to reinvigorate democracy through enhanced public participation and deliberation. I am particularly interested in the practice of deliberative mini-publics such as citizens’ assemblies and citizens’ juries that bring randomly-selected people together to learn, deliberate, and come to recommendations. La Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat, Climate Assembly UK and the Scottish Climate Assembly are high profile examples in the field of climate politics.

I am not saying La Convention and similar deliberative mini-publics are the perfect design or a silver bullet for protecting future generations. But they are worthy of more detailed consideration.

Why am I interested in these bodies? I believe they have a combination of design characteristics that together help ameliorate drivers of democratic myopia.

1. Independence. Random selection protects from the short-term electoral cycle and from incumbent interests looking to sustain their economic and social position. This is why the Ancient Athenians saw random selection as the democratic method.
2. Diversity. Random selection is a second-best solution to the lack of presence of future generations. It ensures that a range of perspectives are brought to bear on the interests of future generations rather than elite or expert-only perspectives. Diversity seeds increased sensitivity to differentials in social power and vulnerabilities that are likely to be reproduced within and between generations.
3. Deliberation. This encourages slow thinking, learning and respect for perspectives other than our own, and internalisation of the interests of others — including those not present. It is difficult, if not impossible, to defend short-term self-interest in public deliberation.

The question is not whether these sorts of bodies are capable of generating decisions that consider the interests of future generations. The evidence is strong that they do. Experimental designs such as the Future Design Movement in Japan indicate how we might innovate further to ensure more effective integration of the long-term within such bodies.

The fundamental question remains whether we — or more accurately, the political class — are willing to empower and institutionalise these bodies in our democratic systems.

I am not arguing that deliberative mini-publics will save the day. The potential of other institutional designs to ameliorate the drivers of short-termism need to be explored. We should think creatively about how to integrate, for example, deliberative mini-publics within the work of offices for future generations to increase the democratic legitimacy of governance arrangements.

The promise is a re-invigorated democracy that we are proud to pass on to future generations. A democracy that safeguards the interests of future generations.

Graham Smith is Professor of Politics, Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, Chair of the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development, and Chair of the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies

This post is part of the New Democratic Institutions series. Read the other articles:

Introducing the New Democratic Institutions series

The New Democratic Institutions Participo series will take a closer look at how some of the institutionalised representative deliberative processes came about, how they function, and what lessons can be drawn from their implementation so far.

How Ostbelgien became a trailblazer in deliberative democracy

An interview with Yves Dejaeghere, one of the key people involved in designing the permanent Citizens’ Council in Ostbelgien, the German-speaking Community of Belgium.

Citizens’ Initiative Review: Helping citizens make better informed voting choices

An interview with Linn Davis, programme manager at Healthy Democracy responsible for the Citizens’ Initiative Review.

Citizens’ Councils in Vorarlberg: Building a culture of participation

Interview with Michael Lederer, Head of the Office for Future Affairs in Vorarlberg, Austria.

How can Citizens’ Assemblies open up parliament?

Interview with Pepijn Kennis, Member of the Brussels-Capital Regional Parliament and Chairperson of the Agora.Brussels parliamentary group

Building political trust for deliberative processes

Interview with Graham Allen, Convener of The Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy, former Chair of the UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, and Member of the UK Parliament 1987–2017

Deliberative Committees: When parliament and citizens work together

Interview with Magali Plovie, President of the Francophone Brussels Parliament